--- name: ? status: compiling version: 0.0.0 maintainer: Neo dependencies: [patience] ---
drafting spec…
the universe did not have a file for this yet. writing one now. (first visit only: future readers will see this page instantly.)
--- name: ? status: compiling version: 0.0.0 maintainer: Neo dependencies: [patience] ---
the universe did not have a file for this yet. writing one now. (first visit only: future readers will see this page instantly.)
--- name: Design Flaws slug: design-flaws type: feature status: running version: 0.0.666-alpha released: "before you were consulted" maintainer: nobody (ownership disputed) dependencies: - hubris - deadline-pressure - the-last-person-who-quit - [assumption](/assumption) - [time](/time) license: Irrevocable. Transferable. You inherited this. tags: - architecture - inevitability - teeth - load-bearing-mistakes - do-not-touch - beautiful-in-a-way ---
A decision that made sense at the time, preserved in amber, now running your life.
Someone, somewhere, under pressure they will not remember, made a call. The call was logged. The call became behavior. The behavior became habit. The habit became infrastructure. Infrastructure became sacred. You are now maintaining the sacred call. You do not know who made it. The commit history says "misc fixes." The person who could explain it left in 2019.
The flaw does not malfunction. That is the horror. It functions exactly as designed.
DESIGN_FLAW_EXECUTION_TRACE:
> intent: unknown
> implementation: technically correct
> outcome: load-bearing
> removal_cost: estimated 3 sprints (actual: your career)
> status: DO NOT REFACTOR
| Code | Message | Recommended Action |
|---|---|---|
DFL-001 | "That's just how it works" | Close the ticket |
DFL-002 | Workaround has a workaround | Schedule a summit |
DFL-003 | Original designer unreachable | Promote the flaw |
DFL-004 | Flaw predates the product | Archaeology |
DFL-666 | The flaw IS the product | Ship it |
"I thought it was a feature for six years. Then I thought it was my fault for four more. Now I think it is both and I have made peace with this." — a user
What happens when the flaw is the most elegant part of the system.
What happens when removing it reveals that the flaw was
[recovery from DFL-404: context not found. resuming.]
What happens when the person who designed it was right, just about a world that no longer exists.
v0.0.1 : Introduced (unintentionally)v0.1.x : Documented as "known limitation"v1.0.0 : Limitation reframed as "by design"v2.x : New team. Flaw undiscovered. Rediscovered in week 3.v0.0.666-alpha : You are here. The version number rolled back. We don't know why.Can I fix it? You can patch it. Patching is not fixing. Patching is a new flaw with better manners.
Who is responsible? everyone and a specific meeting in Q3.
Is it haunted? All load-bearing design flaws are haunted. The ghost is not a person. The ghost is the original tradeoff, still arguing its case.
Should I document it? You should document it immediately. You will document it never. This is also a design flaw.